Belding council takes heat after ordinance amendment rejection

'Sidewalk to nowhere' foolish spending of funds, says business president

Karin Armbrusterkarin.armbruster@sentinel-standard.com

Words of disappointment, anger and disbelief were uttered toward Belding City Council members Tuesday following the rejection of an ordinance concerning sidewalks in industrial districts.

The amendment was first discussed by the Belding Planning Commission before being brought before council for a first reading at the Feb. 5 meeting. The proposal was a recommendation to deem sidewalks unreasonable in the industrial districts. A memo from planning commission member Shawn Seymour said sidewalks in the district are of little benefit to the public, and that pedestrian routes should be on sites where people travel from their vehicle to storefronts where walking from site to site is less likely.

The amendment to require sidewalks was established in 1964, but enforcement has been loose, according to council members.

During the planning commission meeting where the ordinance was deliberated, member Joe Feuerstein said he was willing to approve the amendment, according to planning commission minutes. The minutes also said Belding Mayor Ron Gunderson liked the wording of the amendment and offered his help in the future. Feuerstein was one of six planning commission members to approve the amendment and pass it to city council.

After the first reading in city council, council member Feuerstein and Belding Mayor Protem Andrea Belding approved while council members Tom Jones, Mike Scheid and Gunderson rejected it.

Council members returned to the matter for the second reading and Scheid made a motion to reject the ordinance, with support by Feuerstein.

In public comments, Belding Tank Technologies President Dan Blunt Jr. gave his opinion on the subject. The business, which is located at Merrick and Gooding roads, is expanding, and Blunt was told he is now required to put in sidewalks per the city ordinance. The proposed amendment would waive the requirement, as the business is located in an industrial park in an industrial district. The required sidewalk, which would cost Belding Tank Technologies $37,000, would be built inside the industrial part and down Merrick street, which is a dead end. Trees and shrubs would have to be removed in order to complete the task.

Blunt said he wanted the council to reconsider the rejection of the amendment, as he believes most citizens would not use a "sidewalk to nowhere." He said the sidewalk would not connect to any others and would not lead to another destination, and added he does not want people walking in the area because there is heavy machinery that is constantly using the roadway and may not be safe. He said he takes pride in giving back to the city in many ways, and the money spent creating a sidewalk would be better used for local schools, organizations and causes. A sidewalk would be spending money foolishly, Blunt added.

Planning commission member Shelley Gladding also voiced her opinion and said the city should not make businesses spend money when it is not necessary and believes having sidewalks in industrial areas does not make sense. She added the language in the amendment allows for sidewalks to be added later if needed.

In council comments, Belding said while she believes sidewalks would be important to have in a residential district, a sidewalk is unnecessary in an industrial district.

Belding's husband works at Belding Tank Technologies, but she said she did not need to recuse herself from the vote because the ordinance amendment covered all industrial districts and because there is only a conflict of interest when there is a financial gain involved.

Jones said sidewalks have always been an issue in the city, which does not have a comprehensive sidewalk plan. He said he does not want to allow a variance for one person or business and force another.

Feuerstein said the ordinance should have been enforced long before the present time.

Scheid said the ordinance needs to be enforced and Belding Tank Technologies should have built a sidewalk when they first established the business.

Gunderson said though the sidewalk is not logical at the site, they need to stick to the rules and follow city ordinances. The sidewalks will eventually be connected and lead to somewhere, he added.

The second reading of the ordinance amendment was rejected with only Belding opposed.

Following the rejection, Blunt again addressed the council and expressed his frustration. He said the issue is not about money, but making a wise decision. He also said he was startled Gunderson reversed his opinion after giving positive comments at the planning commission meeting.

Crebessa said because of council's decision, $37,000 will be lost to a company that supports the city. He added he is disappointed that the council did not appear to listen to what the planning commission or the community members said before voting took place.

Additional community members who attended the meeting also shared their opinions, telling the council their disappointment and shock regarding the rejection. Many said the decision is likely to scare business from the city, while others said the old ordinances slow down progress while the city needs to build.

Council members also commented on the decision.

Jones said he hopes the council can work with Belding Tank Technologies and address the issue, and added the planning commission is only an advisory group for the city council.

Belding said she feels as if the rejection is another case of the city not working with businesses and that the switch of some council member's opinions is a slap in the face to those businesses.